The Abyss - Deschutes Brewery

Ahappyhiker2

New Jersey

3.55/5  rDev -22.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3.75

2011 vintage.

A- Pours black, has a decent head on it, tan lacing.

S- Aroma is very sweet. Coffee, molasses, chocolate, and malt are the main flavors I get. A little bit of caramel as well.

T- Initial sip I get a lot of bitter dark chocolate. The flavor is very sweet, like the aroma. It has a good amount of barrel character, nice amount of oak. Coffee, caramel, lots of burnt notes. Again, very sweet, not too sweet though.

M- Medium body, as expected with The Abyss. I traditionally prefer stouts thicker, but for what it is it drinks very well. Could use some more carbonation, its fallen off a bit.

O- The Abyss is always a solid stout, though for the life of me I don't understand why it's one of the highest rated beers on this entire site. I've had it fresh and aged, several times. It always drinks well and has a good amount of flavors but I always feel like it lacks something. As I said it's solid, but it never blows me away.

Serving type: bottle

05-20-2013 13:43:29 | More by Ahappyhiker2

akorsak

Pennsylvania

3.53/5  rDev -22.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

A wax-capped 650 mL bottle of the 2007 reserve from a recent trade with racerx.

A: After using a knife to remove the wax (damned the wax coated offerings!), the stout opened with a hiss. A pour revealed a three plus finger head, thick and bubbly with a tan color. The stout is dark, nothing but blackness in the glass.

S: The nose is bitterly acrid, burnt and over the top with touches of bread pudding sweetness. There is little in the way of balance.

T: The stout kicks you in the teeth with its hoppiness. Not quite a DIPA but lots of citrus bite to cut through the roasted elements. As the hops fade, a nice round of bitter, burnt, scorched even, taste. Lots of flavor emerges (but where was it in the nose?), keeping the palate reasonably happy. A vinous alcohol bite lingers throughout the beer, warming as it goes down.

M: The beer is harsh and biting, lots going on but I think that the beer needs several years to mellow out.

D: At 11%, this beer doesn't pull any punches. I am not sold on Abyss in a fresh state; I think that several years in my cellar will really calm this beast down.

Serving type: bottle

02-24-2008 03:42:24 | More by akorsak

craytonic

District of Columbia

3.53/5  rDev -22.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

2007 Reserve Bomber

Appearance: Pours jet black; good head and lacing.

Smell: Not as strong as I expected. Molasses, fudge chocolate, brown sugar.

Taste: Heavy malt, bitter chocolate, coffee/espresso, molasses, brown sugar, toffee. A little sweet. I get no bourbon or oak. This has none of the typical complexity I see, and like to see, in a RIS

Mouthfeel: Full, but not huge.

Drinkability: Not sure what the hype is, it is ok, nothing special besides rarity. A little heavy on the coffee/bitter for me and lacking in complexity.

NB: Why on earth do they only age a % of it in oak? Put the whole thing in the barrel!!!

Serving type: bottle

12-04-2008 22:43:31 | More by craytonic

crnipeter

Slovenia

3.53/5  rDev -22.6%
look: 5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

The infamous 2009 vintage. Cascades murky reddish-brown to give birth to opaque very dark brown-to-black body topped by huge frothy deep-tan head with incredible retention.

Somewhat bland aroma exhibits unrefined sugar qualities,liquorice, bourbon yielding menthol nasal spray sensation, and a hint of bready malt. Tart notes reminiscent of dark fruit (plums and cherries) and red wine fuel my fears the bottle might be infected. I couldn't tell merely by sniffing that tartness comes from brettanomyces action as the dark fruit esters are commonly found in imperial stouts while vinous qualities are typical of well aged examples.

With the first sip comes release - I've got a non-infected bottle. Wild yeast infection is not a state, it's a continuous process so it should be badly reflected in the taste by now. Flavor that lacks the lactic sourness I feared of is dominated by liquorice, dark fruits, bourbon and chocolaty roasted malts adding some coffee-ish notes. Malt role and complexity is lesser than I hoped for, thought. Clean dry finish is followed by unobtrusive alcohol warmth. Flavors have mellowed in the course of aging so nothing really stands out.

Medium to full body is well attenuated, perhaps a bit thinned by aging. The carbonation is not exaggerated as might be deduced from the thick head. The effortlessly drinkable beer has silky texture and is airy and mouthfilling yet not overly so.

Overall, the Abyss is shallower than its advertised depth and considering the hype fails to impress. Not infected, just average.

Serving type: bottle

12-25-2012 15:05:04 | More by crnipeter

beerpirates

Belgium

3.5/5  rDev -23.2%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Vintage 2009
Infected

A: Pours "stout like" except for the mocha head rapidly rising to massive proportions within my glass. Odd....

S: Sour! Sour cherries, lactic presence. The base beer is almost completely masked. A boozy Flanders Oude Bruin...

T: Not terrible I guess. It sort of reminds me of the zwet.be from 3 fonteinen I had somewhat recently, just not as well crafted....and with alot more cherry. The infection in my bottle must be pretty far along, the sour cherry aspect is still prominent over the base beer.

Hope to taste 2010 soon

Serving type: bottle

02-08-2011 21:09:47 | More by beerpirates

Mavajo

Georgia

3.43/5  rDev -24.8%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 2

2009 Vintage.

Pours a dark near-black body with a deep brown head. Good head and decent lacing.

Nose is of roasted malt, a hint of chocolate, smoke, and licorice. Taste brings much of the same. Roasty flavor with a healthy dose of anise/licorice and oak. All in all, I found the flavor profile to be rough around the edges. I didn't enjoy it, but I would be interested in trying an aged version of this. Mouthfeel is good.

All in all, I didn't enjoy this bottle and it took me hours to drink. But, to be fair, I think that may be my fault - I opened it before the best by date. This is from the '09 vintage, which has developed a reputation for being infected - however, I did not notice any problems with this bottle. I simply didn't care much for it. I'll have to try an aged bottle some time.

Serving type: bottle

08-07-2010 01:32:38 | More by Mavajo

ChadQuest

Illinois

3.43/5  rDev -24.8%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Black with a nice frothy cap that lingers a bit before dropping into a collar with lacing.

Yup this is infected. i can only smell it lightly,but it is easily recognizable and differant from what the last bottle of Abyss i drank was like, but it's not ruining the smell at least, more or less adding another element to the aroma. The only downer to it is it is making me want to drink a sour now, but i have a stout in my glass, it's making me salavate expecting tartness...Nope.
Aroma is where the licorice is strongest for me, and it's a positive addition i think, adds something interesting to really make this something differant. some roasty malts and warming alcohol that stops short of being hot.

Flavors are sorta like the aroma but there is some creamy vanilla flavors, and i am tasting some light off sour notes, nothing to ruin the bottle, but it is for sure putting a slight damper on it, as the finish is a bit dryer then i expected, interesting because this is pretty viscous. I can't say off the top of my head i've had a stout close to the impression of this one, at least in this lightly-infected state.

Feel is nice and viscous, i keep going back and forth between medium thick & just thick...i guess it's medium thick thick. Carbination is slightly strong for the style, maybe from the infection, or maybe otherwise. nice feel in any case.

This was still a good beer with the infection, it would have been interesting to try this infected bottle with another year or two for the little guys to work, just for fun, since it's only lightly working it's presence right now. But it is better in it's un-infected form.

Serving type: bottle

09-02-2010 04:54:41 | More by ChadQuest

n2185

North Carolina

3.43/5  rDev -24.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

2010 vintage

A: pours black with three fingers of dark tan head that fades into a thin cap with decent lacing.

S: graham, cocoa, vanilla, and some roasted coffee. Fairly muted.

T: very roasted tasting. Lots of bitter chocolate and some coffee. Faint vanilla and bourbon notes toward the finish with a slight alcohol burn.

M: thick body with low carbonation, this beer is nice and creamy.

O: a pretty decent imperial stout. The bourbon is almost nonexistant and the nose is very muted, though. Decent enough, though not worth the hype.

Serving type: bottle

01-10-2012 23:54:55 | More by n2185

jwjon1

Delaware

3.4/5  rDev -25.4%
look: 5 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

2009 Vintage

Wanted to love this beer: appearance and smell are near perfect for a BA RIS, and the mouthfeel isn't too far behind, though a bit thin. But the 09 vintage has so much bitterness that gets in the way of an otherwise great RIS. So much so, it took me a long while to get through a single glass. I'll let some bottles sit for a while to see if the edges soften up and re-review at that time, but I'm clearly not in the majority with this one.

Serving type: bottle

12-28-2009 03:41:51 | More by jwjon1

HalfFull

California

3.4/5  rDev -25.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Having had this beer on tap a couple years ago I thought I'd give it a go in the bottle and a bit closer to the brewers intentions I would guess. Bottle cellared for about a year and opened after its 'best after' date of 11/01/10.

Wax sealed bomber poured into a large wine glass. Pours dead black with a rich mocha head and offers good retention and lacing. A notably better pour than the draught version.

Nose is a bit of a reach. I pick up some oak but more of a wine barrel than whiskey, quite vinous in nature. Nice but not as advertised and with notable wine esters. Bit of earthy chocolate comes out with some warming, along with some sweet cherry.

Flavor is a bit thin for the style yet offers a lingering finish. Offers a touch of the whiskey barrel as the beer warms but still remains subdued. Feel is a bit thin as well. Overall a different animal than a fresh tap pour, pleasant yet unremarkable.

Serving type: bottle

11-04-2010 05:21:08 | More by HalfFull

Pencible

Virginia

3.38/5  rDev -25.9%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

2009 vintage, reviewed December 2011.

A: This poured completely pitch black with thick tan head.
S: It smelled sour and tart - clearly part of the infected batch, which is a shame. There was still some chocolate and oak and coffee, with a little smoked salmon and alcohol.
T: It tasted like sour and tart oak, with dark chocolate and roasted coffee, and a little molasses and smoked salmon. It had a tart and bittersweet aftertaste that was a bit dirty.
M: It was oily with moderate carbonation. Nice slick body.
D: As part of the infected batch, this clearly isn't what it's supposed to smell or taste like, but I thought it would be interesting to review anyway. And it was still enjoyable enough to drink my glass...similar to Le Coq. It still looked great, and had great body, and there were definitely signs of this being a great stout under all the unintended sourness. Now I really want to try a good bottle of this legendary beer.

Serving type: bottle

01-02-2012 20:23:01 | More by Pencible

tr4nc3d

Kansas

3.35/5  rDev -26.5%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

On to my quest of finding the best RIS. Next up for audition is a 2008 Abyss. Have some more for cellaring.

Pours a really black thick color with a beatiful brown foamy head that leaves some lacing behind.

Licorice, Molasses, vanilla, dark sugary chocolate

A little sweet upfront with a slight bourbon taste to it.Then its too much of a coffee bitterness which leaves you with a dry bitterness aftertaste.

I could not have more then one of these unlike Black Albert.

Overall I would say its nothing more then an average RIS, but it surely does not live up to the hype it gets

Serving type: bottle

01-06-2009 18:25:00 | More by tr4nc3d

lionchow

California

3.35/5  rDev -26.5%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

This review is for the 2010 batch.

Pours pitch black with a big, tan, finely laced head. Head slowly progresses to lingering rocky tan head. Very beautiful.

Aroma was very nice and filled with big wafts of caramel and molasses.

Flavor was huge right off the bat. Over the top with licorice and molasses, followed with more moderate caramel. Alcohol is beyond warming, seems a bit hot. Can taste some of the bourbon barrel up front, but quickly is overpowered by the other flavors. Bitterness is herbal and quite apparent.

Mouthfeel is creamy and lingers down the throat. Very nice.

Overall this beer had some interesting flavors that I felt were not well balanced. The licorice and molasses combined with the hop bitterness did not meld well for my pallet. There was not enough oak flavor for me. Some reviewers have said that they prefer this low oakiness to other over-oaked stouts, but for me it was too subtle, or perhaps just overpowered by the licorice, molasses and hop flavors. I wish it would have had more time in the barrel or a higher proportion of barrel aged beer in the blend. This said, I would like to save a bottle in the cellar for 1-3 years to see if the flavors become more harmonious with age.

Serving type: bottle

12-23-2010 20:04:25 | More by lionchow

dnrobert24

Alabama

3.35/5  rDev -26.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3.5

It’s amazing how certain beers gain legendary status. Often times that beer is a Russian Imperial Stout. In this case, we have a great brewery brewing a legendary style. So, of course, if you are a fan of the brewery (and I am a fan of this brewery), you will be prone to give high marks. But, when compared to other RIS’s, the Abyss just doesn’t stand up. Certainly, it stands apart. It is unique for embracing the smoky side of dark malts and for giving us the ever-enduring anise licorice flavor, but the beer itself is just too thin. Where it gives smoke and licorice, it takes away fullness and chocolate richness. The Abyss is certainly a contender in the imperial stout throne room, but it is a minor god, if you are considering the great Olympians.

Serving type: bottle

07-25-2011 05:53:13 | More by dnrobert24

Crosling

Colorado

3.3/5  rDev -27.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Around $ 9.00 per bottle in Colorado. I can’t appreciate subtlety in this style. Either smack me with hops (Yeti), blast me with oak (Bourbon County) or spank me with tons of malt (Expedition.) It’s a good, drinkable beer, but I didn’t find much complexity in my bottle.

Another bottle: I drank this one warm and still cant get why you people like it.

Serving type: bottle

05-13-2007 06:20:41 | More by Crosling

huskermike12

Iowa

3.3/5  rDev -27.6%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

2010 Vintage

Appearance: Dark black color with two full fingers of foamy dark tan head that settles into a thin layer.

Smell: Milk chocolate, roasted chocolate and coffee prominently featured. Light cherry and some vanilla.

Taste: Milk chocolate and faint coffee upfront. Finish is quite coffee heavy and slightly bourbon heavy.

Mouthfeel: Full bodied, minimal carbonation.

Overall: Nice beer, but way overrated. I wouldn't even put this in the same class as a CBS, BCBS, King Henry (yes, I know it's a barleywine, but drinks more like a stout). The barrel aging isn't there and the flavors except coffee are muted. Nice beer that I would buy if I saw it on the shelf, but would not seek out.

Serving type: bottle

01-26-2012 22:14:30 | More by huskermike12

Beaver13

Colorado

3.28/5  rDev -28.1%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

22 oz bottle. Pours a dark blackish brown with a frothy dark brown head that retains well and laces the glass.

The aroma is more subdued than expected - roasted chocolate malts, strong oak with a little anise, nitrogen(?) and leather.

The flavor is strong overpowering black licorice at first with a little oak and sweet chocolate malts leading to a charred bitter finish. The alcohol is well hidden. The mouthfeel is medium to full with low carbonation.

Overall, I tend not to like the black licorice flavors, and this one has it strong. As it warms (or as I get used to it), the sweetness starts to balance it out.

Serving type: bottle

01-28-2008 06:54:39 | More by Beaver13

schellsbeer

Minnesota

3.28/5  rDev -28.1%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 5 | overall: 3

Reviewed from notes from Early December 2008.

World Class...yeah...Not really. I really don't understand what all the hype is about. From our night of tasting, there were some many better expamples of Russian Imperial Stouts that we sampled.

A - Great example of a RIS. Black and thick syrup. Very nice.

S - Clean but really not much there.

T - Cream. Dark. Thick. Dark chocolate but no bitterness. Molassas. No alcohol present which is a definite plus but sort of bland on taste. Just average in my book. Single layered. No fuss. Plain and simple in my book.

M - Love the thickness. For this reason...a 5.

D - Ok if I could find this but can't. Also, at 11%, little high....just right though for a RIS. Would I drink again? Yes but I think a few more years of aging would do this beer wonders.

Serving type: bottle

01-01-2009 20:41:58 | More by schellsbeer

chrisgalvin

California

3.23/5  rDev -29.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 3

Clearly I am an arse because I was not really satisfied with this beer and I bought three bottles to be as subjective as possible -- I just wanted to see what the hype was all about. I just felt it was a bit average, just not balanced for my palate and bit too much.

Serving type: bottle

04-01-2013 04:21:11 | More by chrisgalvin

uberkane

New Jersey

3.2/5  rDev -29.8%
look: 5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

2010 fresh

A: A dark black, viscous looking beer. Pours with an impressive, frothy mocha head that dissipates very slowly. Tons of lacing.

S: Light roasted malts. Notes of vanilla and hints of chocolate. Sweet burnt toast.

T: Big bitter coffee/espresso with dark chocolate. A little harsh. Vanilla and bourbons hints. Dark burnt sugar is occasionally apparent.

M: Thick, with some velvety carbonation.

D: The thickness and harsh flavors bring the drinkability down, but for all it's complexities it is pretty drinkable.

Notes: Honestly, I was a little disappointed with this beer. I'm a big fan of big stouts, so I expected to be a big fan of this beer. However, the flavors seemed a little harsh in the wrong places. I have another bottle, and will give this beer another chance after a year of aging.

Serving type: bottle

12-31-2010 16:22:10 | More by uberkane

DIM

Pennsylvania

3.13/5  rDev -31.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

a: This was a very thick looking black with no highlights. It poured with the darkest mocha colored head I've seen yet.

s: This was surprisingly mild overall, smelling of molasses, cocoa, licorice, alcohol, and some vanilla.

t: This started out as an amazingly complex and superb imperial stout. Every sip seemed to be different. To varying degrees at different times I tasted molasses, vanilla, chocolate, mild coffee, toasted grains, and oak. no two sips were the same and if it weren't for the finish this would absolutely live up to the hype for me. I'm not a fan of licorice so the strong licorice flavor at the end was a turn off for me. But the worst part was the mentholated rubbing alcohol at the very end. The feeling it left in it's wake reminded of how my mouth feels after an altoids. Not the flavor, just that sinus clearing "fresh" feeling.

m: The body and carbonation are both outstanding, but the mentholated dryness at the end left me cold.

d: I'm very glad I had help with this one, eleven ounces was about all I could take. If you like licorice you'll like this more than I did. Thanks to JohnGalt1 for the chance to try this one.

Serving type: bottle

04-06-2008 14:47:21 | More by DIM

Bmoyer0301

Pennsylvania

3.1/5  rDev -32%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

The dreaded 2009 sour vintage....

Appearnace:

This bottle has a very simple yet classy looking label with a wax dipped neck preventing any oxygen from getting into the bottle creating spoilage. As I finish up checking out the label I noticed they have a little piece of information on the side of the bottle that I never saw before, a "best after" date which says 11/16/2010. That's really interesting to see on a beer because usually you see "best before" dates telling to to consume the beer while it's still fresh and this is telling me to cellar this beer to attain optimum flavors. I had to get a knife out to pry off a small slice of wax before I could get my bottle opener under the lip of the cap which was a mild pain in the butt. After the cap was removed I got a healthy sounding hiss noise and no gushing which was a good sign so far that there wasn't any infection. I pulled out my Victory snifter and gave this beer a healthy straight on pour and was welcomed with a nice mocha caramel colored two finger thick head which hung around for quite awhile. When I hold the glass up to the light all I can see is black murky midnight with no light shining through and a medium amount of lacing sliding down the walls.

Smell:

On the nose I am pulling out loads chocolate, and woody barrel aging with vanilla. The large amount of dry roast is there too almost like a freshly made Starbucks hot coffee with loads of molasses thrown in. I am not getting any sour or lactic aromas witch is yet another good sign that this is not infected, I guess I am feeling lucky today! In the finish I'm also pulling out a fair amount of prunes and figs that have been chard over a campfire.

Taste:

Hmm...maybe I spoke too soon. The smell is much better than the taste at this point, surprisingly this beer is very thin and not quite like I remembered. There is a tinge of sourness lingering around which is not off putting but yet its not typical or expected in this style. I can pull out some bakers chocolate and a slight amount of woody undertones but over all this beer just isn't right. As I trudge on through this beer I am noticing some licorice that adds a small amount of spiciness to the complexity. I can sense some vanilla, and chard ashy taste but I keep coming back to the tartness in the finish and as I kept going it seemed to get worse and worse on my palate.

Drinkability:

Overall, I am a little bit disappointed by this beer. I really thought that I was going to escape from the infection that everyone was talking about. As I finished up the bottle it became harder and harder to drink because I really could pick out the lactic funky taste. For a future reference I will be searching out other vintages of this beer because a lot of people have had great things to say about it and I would love to know how it taste fresh. If you come across this beer in any other vintage you should definitely give it a try and let me know what you think, as for the 2009 version all I can say is that you are taking a gamble on getting a bogus bottle

Serving type: bottle

07-29-2010 10:53:58 | More by Bmoyer0301

RaulMondesi

California

3.05/5  rDev -33.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Sippin' on this thang at Haven Gastro Pub in Old Town Orange, CA

Saw that this bad boy has a 100 and it had me intrigued. Even at $12 a pop, I couldn't resist. But now Raul wishes that he did.

Look? Like a good stout. Not much to say.

Aroma? A little coffee, toffee even. But nothin' blowin up at me like a gangsta would want.

Taste? HUGE letdown. Boozy, a bit harsh (a bit), and just not that great. I mean, it's palatable, but wow...

Mouthfeel? Is there any? Oh yeah, not much. I've had richer, silkier, and more supple Stouts than this thang.

Not only does Raul not approve. He says run. Run to the nearest Old Rasputin that you can find!

Edit: It was served overly cold out of the tap and it is getting better as it warms.

Serving type: on-tap

01-03-2013 00:29:28 | More by RaulMondesi

francisweizen

Australia

2.9/5  rDev -36.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

I revisted this one last night from the bottle, and wow what a dissapointment. I must have been high as a kite when I wrote my first review, as this stuff is just not good. On the pour this beer looks great. Dark black/cola brown with a coffee whip espresso head of foam. Aromas are good too, slight chocolate, coffee, roasetd malts. Nice. However the taste is fine up front, but this is too sweet in the middle and the chocolate/coffee/roast flavors just turn to acrid bitter cold brewed coffee in the sour finish. Also, the mouthfeel is thin for an imperial stout. The thin mouthfeel and bad sour coffee aftertaste of overburnt espresso beans really kills the drinkability for this one. Maybe a bad bottle? Maybe, but it was fresh from the most recent release in a wax dipped 22oz bomber, so it seems unlikely. Not good.

Serving type: bottle

11-15-2007 23:53:22 | More by francisweizen

2xHops

Texas

2.85/5  rDev -37.5%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

2010 vintage bottle opened and poured into a Maudite glass.

Man, this stout is dark, dark, dark, dark, dark, dark, dark. It really did look very appetizing.

The smell seems so strange. It doesn't appeal to my nose at all.

The taste is not quite what I expected. It was very good, but it was heavy on the coffee flavor profile than I expected. I certainly can taste a hint of molasses coming though, the oak coming through slightly.

The mouthfeel is very, very dry. I felt like my mouth was shriveling up worse than a prune. This is after letting the beer breathe for a long while, and I feel like something's wrong. It's not normal.

Overall, I don't see the hype. I am starting to think that I may had gotten a bad bottle that is skunked or something. I imagine I will need to try another bottle to truly see if the consistency is there. I prefer Goose Island's Bourbon Rare Stout far more to this one. It's incomparable, so I only consider this to be a decent beer, but not world class at all.

So far, so what.... I'll have to revisit this review when I somehow get another 2010 bottle, or at least try the 2011 vintage somehow.

Serving type: bottle

11-08-2011 06:35:22 | More by 2xHops